[Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 10 January 2019 01:20 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: extra@ietf.org
Delivered-To: extra@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A570A12DD85; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 17:20:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use@ietf.org, Jiankang Yao <yaojk@cnnic.cn>, extra-chairs@ietf.org, yaojk@cnnic.cn, extra@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.89.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154708325763.4990.14007827148353808097.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 17:20:57 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/extra/8Y2s5ecLMf-1k29sQT_JdwEWazk>
Subject: [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: extra@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Email mailstore and eXtensions To Revise or Amend <extra.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/extra/>
List-Post: <mailto:extra@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/extra>, <mailto:extra-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 01:20:58 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use-04: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-extra-sieve-special-use/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm balloting Yes because this document seems like it is going to do the right thing in helping to keep sieve up to date with IMAP. But I do still have a few comments. Section 1 Commonly, several mailboxes in an IMAP message store [IMAP] have a special use; e.g. it is where the user's draft messages are stored, where a copy of sent messages are kept, or it is where spam messages are filed automatically at delivery. [...] nits: there's a singular/plural mismatch between "several mailboxes" and "it"; there should also be a comma after "e.g.". Section 4 Implementations SHOULD handle an invalid special- use flag in the same way as an invalid mailbox name is handled. The (Does "invalid" mean "syntactically invalid" or "nonexistent" or something else? Presumably this is just a sieve convention that I've not been exposed to yet...) However, while the set of mailboxes to which the involved special-use flags are assigned remains unchanged, implementations SHOULD ensure that the mailbox choice is made consistently, so that the same mailbox is used every time. Conversely, the chosen mailbox MAY change once the special-use flag assignments that are relevant for the mailbox choice are changed (usually by user interaction). If delivery to the special-use mailbox fails for reasons not relating to its existence, the Sieve interpreter MUST NOT subsequently attempt delivery in the indicated default mailbox as a fall-back. Instead, it MUST proceed exactly as it does in case the ":specialuse" argument is absent and delivery to the mailbox named by its positional argument fails. This prevents the situation where messages are unexpectedly spread over two mailboxes in case transient or intermittent delivery failures occur. It seems a little inconsistent to only avoid spreading messages over two mailboxes as a SHOULD for when multiple options exist but a MUST for transient delivery failure. But presumably this has already been well-discussed in the WG and I shouldn't try to reopen it. Section 4.2 The IMAP example should probably use RFC 6761 domains.
- [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-extra-… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-ex… Ned Freed
- Re: [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-ex… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Extra] Benjamin Kaduk's Yes on draft-ietf-ex… Ned Freed